beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 180,255,678 among the Plaintiff and KRW 101,00,000 among them, shall be KRW 79,255,678 from April 17, 2014.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is the party’s status 1) The Plaintiff is a new-scarfly holding apartment located in 74-32, the 3-gil-ro, the 74-32, the 3-gil-ro, the Shinjin-
(2) The Defendant is a company that guaranteed the obligation to repair defects in the apartment of this case, which is a contractor of the apartment of this case (hereinafter “new construction”), to manage the apartment of this case.
B. 1) On July 14, 2008, the Defendant concluded a contract for the repair of defects with respect to the new construction of the instant apartment as indicated below and issued a written contract for the repair of defects (hereinafter referred to as the “instant contract for the repair of defects”) by making the new construction and the guarantee creditor as the Jin-gun. The Defendant concluded each contract for the repair of defects for the new construction of the instant apartment as listed below (hereinafter
(2) Article 1 of the General Terms and Conditions of the instant guarantee agreement provides that “The Defendant shall compensate the obligee for any defects arising within the warranty period after the policyholder, who was the obligor, received a final inspection or examination of the completion of the contract or the sales contract and received a request for the repair or supplement of the defects arising within the warranty period, due to the failure to perform the said request under the contract entered in the insurance policy and the matters entered in the insurance policy, which the obligee, as the obligee, as the obligee, in accordance with the terms and conditions, from July 30, 2008 to July 29, 2013, from July 30 to July 29, 2013.”
3) Meanwhile, the approval for use was completed on July 30, 2008 with respect to the instant apartment, and the Plaintiff, which was an autonomous management body of the instant apartment, was constituted, the guarantee creditor of each of the instant apartment, was changed to the Plaintiff. C. New construction of the instant apartment was not a construction work to be executed in accordance with the design drawings in performing the new construction work of the instant apartment.